issue and its status before Congress at the time of this writing will be briefly pointed out here. For over 150 years the Federal Government has entirely and directly financed the higher education of selected individudals to prepare them for certain types of national service-principally for service as officers in the Armed Forces. Since 1862, through the land-grant colleges and universities, the Federal Government has indirectly aided other individuals to obtain higher education in certain fields. In recent years the Government has provided scholarships and fellowships or similar direct aid to some persons, mainly veterans, for their higher education in fields of their choice. After World War II various national organizations and prominent persons began urging the establishment of a general Federal scholarship program to take over at the time of the decline of the program for veterans. In 1949 and 1950 President Truman urged Congress to establish such a program. For that purpose he included an item in the national budget for the fiscal year 1951.20 For nearly a decade proposals for different forms of Federal aid to students have been introduced in each Congress. Dozens of such proposals were introduced in the 84th Congress. Some of them have been reintroduced in the 85th Congress, along with new proposals. The American Council on Education is sponsoring an income-tax credit plan which would provide aid to the higher education of some individuals. The council is also restudying its earlier policy recommendations for a Federal scholarship program. Recent recommendations or proposals for forms of Federal aid to students have emerged from deliberations within (1) the Association for Higher Education, (2) several of the State conferences which preceded the White House Conference on Education, and (3) the representative assembly of the National Education Association. The arguments pro and con concerning establishment of a Federal scholarship program are reviewed in the aforementioned report. In recent deliberations over the scholarship issue considerable attention has been given to whether education in the sciences should be emphasized or further promoted by the Federal Government. At the last annual convention of the American Council on Education in Chicago, in October 1956, educators pointed out the need for well-trained persons in the fine arts, the social sciences, religion, history, economics, philosophy, and languages as well as in the natural sciences. Among others, Dr. Earl J. McGrath, former United States Commissioner of Education and now a director of the Institute of Higher Education at Columbia University Teachers College, discussed this point. He said that if we attempt to siphon off the best brains into the sciences, leaving the second-best to the liberal arts and humanities, our country will suffer in the long run." Actually, current aims of American education in the sciences and liberal arts tend to minimize conflict between the two. Training in the profession tends to become more liberal, and more science education is being included in a liberal arts curriculum. Another consideration in the Federal scholarships issue is the question of whether such scholarships, if established, would reach the Economic Report to Congress, January 7, 1949: Budget message of January 10, 1949, and January 9, 1950. New York Times, October 12, 1956. J. SUBPROFESSIONAL TRAINING A major consideration in the problem of trained manpower production is subprofessional training, mainly comprised within the term-"vocational education below college grade." There is some evidence that our shortage of professional scientists and engineers may not be as great as our shortage of subprofessional technicians, though there is a lack of general agreement concerning the meaning of these terms. Some thinkers on the subject have expressed alarm over the great number of institutions and programs that have been developed in Soviet Russia to train technicians and skilled workers. According to recent information from several reliable sources, Russia now has more than 3,000 "tekhnikums" enrolling more than 211⁄2 million people and graduating annually approximately 70,000 technicians and skilled workers. Former Senator William Benton, now publisher of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, has pointed out that these institutions are turning out supertechnicians and specialists who fill vitally important secondary jobs, thus leaving graduate engineers free for more highly skilled work. These technicians, who are being trained in propaganda methods as well as in technical fields, are being sent by the hundreds to underdeveloped countries seeking, or at least willing to accept, guidance and leadership in technological fields. The Russian specialists are not only helping these countries with technical problems, but are also spreading the Communist doctrine in many parts of the world. This is an important phase of the "war of the classrooms" against the West. In an exclusive interview published in the August 1956 issue of the Nation's Business, Assistant Secretary of Commerce Harold C. McClellan pointed to these Russians activities as part of the plan to wreck United States economy and dominate the world. He said in part: This is clearly a new international game of matching economic wits. Immediately at stake are awakening millions of people in the underdeveloped areas and the vast potential markets which they represent. Russia wants these people, their trade, and their sympathy. *** Yes, this is a brandnew phase of the East-West struggle and one as threatening to free world security as the stockpiling of weapons. At present the United States has very few institutions comparable to the unique Soviet technological schools that are turning out supertechnicians without a college degree. However, throughout America there are vocational schools competent to develop for the youth and adults of the Nation better programs of vocational training of less than college grade if they are able to obtain sufficient funds. K. FINANCIAL AID TO STUDENTS Another major consideration in this study is the question of establishing a new program of Federal financial aid to students for higher education. A comprehensive study of this issue, prepared by the present writer, was printed for the use of the House Committee on Education and Labor in June 1956.19 A few of the elements of the 19 Federal Aid to Students for Higher Education. Committee print, 191 pp. issue and its status before Congress at the time of this writing will be briefly pointed out here. For over 150 years the Federal Government has entirely and directly financed the higher education of selected individudals to prepare them for certain types of national service-principally for service as officers in the Armed Forces. Since 1862, through the land-grant colleges and universities, the Federal Government has indirectly aided other individuals to obtain higher education in certain fields. In recent years the Government has provided scholarships and fellowships or similar direct aid to some persons, mainly veterans, for their higher education in fields of their choice. After World War II various national organizations and prominent persons began urging the establishment of a general Federal scholarship program to take over at the time of the decline of the program for veterans. In 1949 and 1950 President Truman urged Congress to establish such a program. For that purpose he included an item in the national budget for the fiscal year 1951.20 For nearly a decade proposals for different forms of Federal aid to students have been introduced in each Congress. Dozens of such proposals were introduced in the 84th Congress. Some of them have been reintroduced in the 85th Congress, along with new proposals. The American Council on Education is sponsoring an income-tax credit plan which would provide aid to the higher education of some individuals. The council is also restudying its earlier policy recommendations for a Federal scholarship program. Recent recommendations or proposals for forms of Federal aid to students have emerged from deliberations within (1) the Association for Higher Education, (2) several of the State conferences which preceded the White House Conference on Education, and (3) the representative assembly of the National Education Association. The arguments pro and con concerning establishment of a Federal scholarship program are reviewed in the aforementioned report. In recent deliberations over the scholarship issue considerable attention has been given to whether education in the sciences should be emphasized or further promoted by the Federal Government. At the last annual convention of the American Council on Education in Chicago, in October 1956, educators pointed out the need for well-trained persons in the fine arts, the social sciences, religion, history, economics, philosophy, and languages as well as in the natural sciences. Among others, Dr. Earl J. McGrath, former United States Commissioner of Education and now a director of the Institute of Higher Education at Columbia University Teachers College, discussed this point. He said that if we attempt to siphon off the best brains into the sciences, leaving the second-best to the liberal arts and humanities, our country will suffer in the long run.21 Actually, current aims of American education in the sciences and liberal arts tend to minimize conflict between the two. Training in the profession tends to become more liberal, and more science education is being included in a liberal arts curriculum. Another consideration in the Federal scholarships issue is the question of whether such scholarships, if established, would reach the Economic Report to Congress, January 7, 1949: Budget message of January 10, 1949, and January 9, 1950. New York Times, October 12, 1956. students actually needing them. This involves the question of the value of a means test. The answer to both of these questions would of course depend upon the nature of the Federal scholarship program and provisions for its administration, and the nature of the means test. The means test questionnaire, and procedures for handling the questionnaire, which were worked out by the Educational Testing Service for member institutions of the College Entrance Examination Board, have been in use for several years. The member institutions have gone on record several times as to satisfaction with the program and have urged its continuance. The membership includes practically all institutions of higher education in New England and in New York State, and a substantial number of the institutions in other States. The Federal scholarship program which has been proposed by the Committee on Relationships to the Federal Government, of the American Council on Education, includes a means test. According to information obtained from the council, the committee which formulated the plan concluded that a means test is desirable and that satisfactory procedures for administering such a test are in existence. Proposals for a program of Federal financial aid to students also raise the question of whether such a program should provide scholarships or loans, or both. The answer is, of course, a matter of opinion. Bills proposing each of these types of program are pending in Congress. It might be pointed out here that loan funds available to students in many institutions of higher education are not being fully used. This is well known in educational circles. Apparently many young men and women are unwilling to place themselves in debt at the start of their careers. Whether Congress can devise a loan plan to persuade financially needy young people of superior ability to attend college in their own and the national interest is open to question. In March 1957, the Honorable Carl Elliott, chairman of the Subcommittee on Special Education, of the Committee on Education and Labor, expressed the intention of the subcommittee to hold hearings on the question of establishment of a national scholarship program and related special problems of education. It was expected that the hearings would highlight many facets of the question of trained manpower development. L. CONTRIBUTIONS OF NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS TO MAN POWER DEVELOPMENT Another important consideration in this study is what nongovernmental organizations, particularly corporations, are doing toward reduction of our trained manpower shortages. Nongovernmental organizations of different kinds-corporations, technical societies, educational associations, and others are variously contributing to the development of technical and professional manpower in the United States. The contribution may be specific and direct-such as a scholarship for study in chemistry at a particular institution, or it may be general and indirect, such as an unrestricted grant to an association of educational institutions. The contribution may be as impressive as a corporation's announcement that its total grants-in-aid of higher educa tion this year exceed a million dollars; or it may be as modest as a local social club's effort to make the new high school science teacher feel respected in the community. Yet both types of contributions, and many others, have a place in our American scheme of things, and all are important. Led by the Ford Foundation, a number of corporate concerns have made contributions to the National Merit Scholarship Corp., which began operating in 1955 with over $21 million, the largest single sum ever devoted to scholarships. While this sum is impressive, in 1956 the Educator's Dispatch pointed out that in order to maintain 4,000 men and women in college as hoped for eventually, the sum would have to be built up by many more large contributions. Although it is a very "heartening event in American education," the establishment of this much-publicized fund can hardly be regarded as a full answer to the Nation's problem of technical and professional manpower development. In 1956 corporation grants in support of higher education (broadly interpreted) totaled an estimated $100 million. Total voluntary private gifts to higher education from all sources exceeded $500 million. The president of the Council on Financial Aid to Education has estimated that the institutions will need another $500 million a year for the next 10 years.22 Many corporations are considering policy questions such as whether they should give to "have" or "have not" institutions, and to tax-supported as well as privately supported ones. Generally, corporate support of higher education is in the early stages of an evolutionary process. No broad policy has been agreed upon by a large number of corporations. Some persons feel that it is as desirable to maintain the existing diversity and competition in corporate support of education as to maintain diversity and competition in higher education itself. Although there appears to be a trend toward consideration of the national interest, for the most part corporate aid to education is now governed by a number of restrictive criteria. Prominent among such criteria are: (1) the location of company plants, employments or markets in relation to the educational institutions considered for aid, (2) the institutional sources of the corporation's own personnel, and (3) the particular subject field of the corporation's interest. For instance, a corporation may restrict its grants to colleges in certain. States in which it owns plants, or it may direct its aid to the institutions which have furnished the largest numbers of its salaried personnel, or provide scholarships for study only in a particular subject field. In this respect corporation support of higher education differs from any form of Federal financial support of education which is apt to be enacted by the Congress. It is reasonable to assume (1) that any general Federal measure would give primary consideration to the national interest, since the Federal Government represents that interest, and (2) that a Federal grants-in-aid bill would contain a formula for distribution of Federal funds on a State quota or some other equable basis. In contrast, corporation aid is largely restricted to institutions in certain areas. Buder, Leonard. College Reliance on Industry Rises. New York Times, January 13, 1957, p. 1. |